I’d like to publicly apologize to Robert Johansen for this post, critiquing his National Review article about Terri Schiavo’s PVS diagnosis. I stand behind my critique of the facts and reasoning in Rev. Johansen’s National Review article. However, at times what I wrote isn’t critiquing Rev. Johansen’s article, and is instead making personal attacks on Rev. Johansen himself.
Not only was that wrong of me, but it’s the sort of thing I usually try hard to avoid. Again, I apologize to Robert Johansen, and I’ll try to do better in the future.
Did you edit the original post? Because I just don’t see the ad hominem attacks. Calling someone an “irresponsible reporter” when they are an irresponsible reporter is not crossing the boundaries of good taste.
It’s statements like “I’m stunned by the amazing indifference to truth Rev. Johansen displays” that I’m apologizing for. It was unkind and unfair of me to assume that he was displaying any indifference to truth; it’s more likely that he has a sincere difference of opinion with me as to what “the truth” is. I think he’s mistaken, but that’s no reason to call him dishonest.
Basically, I should have just attacked the article, and made no comments at all regarding Johansen himself.
why is it “more likely” one & not the other?
There is too much namby-pamby around! You said what you meant, it was gentlemanly and restrained, and well expressed. No apologies!
as my old man used to say, ‘you’re a better man nor me’.
I wasn’t aware that calling someone who “honestly disagrees with you” a liar was bad form anymore.
I sincerely doubt Johansen or his allies would be half as respectfully inclined.
it’s possible to have differing opinions on matters of opinion: he may not believe allowing Ms. Schiavo the death she chose was the right thing to do. that’s fine, and that’s an honest disagreement.
but selectively editting evidence to make the truth to give more weight to your opinion is a lie. If he made an honest mistake (quoting sources without vetting them enough to see if they were lying, mistaken, or out of context, for instance) then that’s one thing.
if he knows Hammersten is a fraud, and still uses him as a “reliable source” that is a glaring lie of omission, as he has information that changes the value of the quote which he does not disclose.
and when one makes a lie of omission, or any lie, that makes one a liar.
it isn’t really an ad hominem attack to call someone a liar when they make lies in their arguement. perhaps if you end up at odds with him again and bring up “yeah, well you had that bogus commentary on the Schiavo case” that would be ad hominem.
calling a spade a spade isn’t unfair, even if he had his lawyers send you a SLAPP suit C&D letter (which I suspect, or I don’t think it really would have come up again)
even if he had his lawyers send you a SLAPP suit C&D letter (which I suspect, or I don’t think it really would have come up again)
i confess to being intrigued as to what prompted this post. whilst it is true that Mr. Ampersand is, generally speaking, a paragon of civility & politeness, it is also true, i believe, that he’s said harsher things to folks… certainly harsher than “amazing indifference to truth” (which is pretty damn mild as far as political debates go – not to mention the fact that Mr. Johansen is a good candidate for such a characterization)
and yet i can’t remember any time he’s made such a public apology…
it’s a stumper.
i have bit of constructive criticism, tho… (yeah, there’s a first for everything): Mr. Ampersand, if you don’t feel it’s fair to hold Mr. Johansen responsible for his irresponsible reporting, why not just amend the original piece to have it say that the National Review has an amazing indifference to the truth… they’re the ones who published it and, as your piece made quite clear, apparently with no fact checking (that is, of course, if “fact checking” is something the National Review ever does)
No, no, a thousand times no.
If a National Review writer sent me a SLAPP C&D letter, I wouldn’t respond by apologizing; I’d respond by posting the C&D letter on “Alas,” contacting my local ACLU, and trying to use the situation to stick it to NR as hard as possible.
What happened in this case is that I had emailed Rev. Johansen asking him to clarify several points (does he have any evidence supporting X, Y and Z claims, that sort of thing). He emailed me back a perfectly polite and non-threatening letter, saying that answers would be forthcoming, and also saying (in a nutshell) that he felt I had treated him unfairly by calling him a liar.
I reread my post and agreed that I could have treated him more fairly. So I apologized. It’s really not a big deal.
But just to be super-clear: I did not receive any threatening communications from Rev. J. or anyone representing him. I offered an apology without him even asking for it; I didn’t act under duress of any sort. Okay?
* * *
On to other matters:
In my opinion, it is bad form.
I don’t know if that’s true or not. But regardless, it’s not my concern. As a general principle, if other people act badly, that doesn’t mean I should act badly, too.
Actually, I think it’s a standard debating tactic. It’s up to me to present the evidence which best supports my case; it’s up to my opponents to present the evidence which best supports their case. Although it’s not the most honest thing in the world, it is something that almost everyone does to some degree. I’m sure that if someone went through all my past posts, they could find some examples of where I’ve presented the best evidence for my side of an argument while not presenting all of the counter-evidence.
More importantly, though, whether or not the person is a liar is irrelevant. The best case is the best case; if it’s truthful and supported by evidence, it should stand. If it’s not, it should fall. Whether or not the person presenting a false case is aware that it’s false isn’t important.
Knowingly saying something untrue – such as saying “Terri never had a MRI” when you know she did – is a lie. But I have no reason to believe that Rev. J. knew about the 1990 MRI when he wrote his article.
For that matter, maybe the 1990 MRI never happened, and Rev. J. will be able to prove that it never happened, thus redeeming the accuracy of his NR article. I very much doubt that will happen – but if it does, then I hope people will give me the benefit of the doubt, and assume I didn’t deliberately lie. And if I want others to give me the benefit of the doubt, then I think I should offer it to others in turn.
* * *
By the way, if a reporter has been factually inaccurate in the past, it’s not an ad hom to say “considering this reporter’s record, we shouldn’t take his ‘facts’ at face value.” An ad hom is an attack on the speaker, not an attack on just anybody.
1. Lois Lane says that Bruce Wayne is not Batman.
2. In the past, Lois Lane has said that Clark Kent is not Superman, when in fact Clark Kent is Superman.
3. Therefore, we have reason to doubt that Lois is a reporter who reports facts correctly.
That’s not an ad hom, because nothing about it depends on Lois Lane being the speaker. Maybe she’s the speaker, maybe not; but even if she is the speaker, it doesn’t matter. Ssince my argument is not dependant on attacking the speaker, it’s not an ad hom.
the standard debating tactic is to choose which points you believe have more importance and emphasize those points. that is legitimate.
lies of omission are not. example:
two years ago, Batman and Bruce Wayne actually appeared in a photograph together. Lois Lane cites the existance of this photograph in her report, denying that the two are one and the same.
she neglects to mention that at the time, Batman was committing a bank robbery, and it was later proven that the bank robbing batman was an impostor, hoping to ruin the caped crusaders name. Lois does not report that The Batman in the photo was really a former member of the guild of assassins acting on orders from Raz Al Ghul. she only reports “How can they be the same, when this photograph clearly shows them in the same place?”
That would be a lie, Detective, and a rather clever one at that. I congradulate Ms. Lane on protecting your secret identity.
what fun is a riddle when everyone knows the answer.
yes, I suppose I did go off the wall there. I realize Amp is not Batman, and that I am not the Riddler.
yet.
I realize Amp is not Batman…
That’s what he would want you to think, if he WERE Batman.
Personally I am gratified that the trust and respect I have for Barry are validated by his decision to apologize. It takes a larger man, etc.
Amp can’t be batman. there’s no way he could afford the batarangs, let alone keeping the batmobile fueled on his salary.
plus, Gotham is on the east coast.
he could be the Green Arrow though.
Green Arrow is the greatest hero who ever lived, after Norman Borlaug.
Who?
is that “who” to Green Arrow or Norman Borlaug?
Green Arrow started out as a concept similar to Batman: a wealthy entrepeneur who dons a constume (in this case, Robin Hood with a green harlequin mask) to fight crime, using gadgets that take the forms of various arrows (net arrows, exploding arrows, boxing glove arrows, and so on). Headquartered in Star City (nee: Seattle), he fought crime and was an early justice league member. Secret identity: Oliver Queen.
during the turbulent era of the mid 20th century, the character was developed into having more of a distinct personality, including a strong liberal leaning, siding with youthful demonstrators against the government on several occations. He was teamed up with then-Green Lantern Hal Jordan for the Green Lantern/Green Arrow series, which provided heavy political commentary, with Hal as the voice of the establishment and Oliver as the voice of reform. particularly powerful was a sequence in which Green Lantern starts to come to terms with the idea that he’s racist (not “a racist” mind you, just racist.)
During Crisis on Infinite Earths, when Hal Jordan wigged out, became a villian, and nearly destroyed the Universe using the power of his ring, he was stopped when Green Arrow shot him, giving his life in the process that the universe might be saved. kinda like Jesus.
Norman Borlaug, on the other hand, is a bioengineer who invented “short wheat” which growing to shorter heights, has a more rigid stalk, keeping the stalk from bending and touching the wheat to the ground, which makes it rot quickly.
it sounds simple, but his discovery is credited with saving a billion lives worldwide from starvation and earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970.
not as dramatic, but inspiring nonetheless.
the guy simply has no credibility as a writer, since he’s so credulous he believes anything he’s told, without ever doing any due diligence to investigate the claims
For example, his first 2 articles he wrote on the case were little more than reprints of Hammesfahr’s ridicukous claims straight off Hammesfahr’s website – he had no knowledge of Hammesfahr’s significant disciplinary history with the Florida Medical Board or the fake “Nobel Prize nomination” until I pointed them out to him on his website 2 years ago
to this day he believes those who filed affidivits claiming they could cure her – he never bothered to investigate any of those claims either
he has been negligently cruel to the Schindlers – he should have been one of the first people to condemn Hammesfahr and the other affiants’ exploitation of the Schindlers’ family tragedy